NOTICE: This chat site is provided solely for your benefit and enjoyment. All views expressed are solely those of the person posting them. If you find inappropriate or offensive postings or intrusions, please notify the site administrator.

Thank you for supporting your Conservancy with intelligent comments and generous contributions.

Here is the Spaulding print easel: a large, eye catching piece if there ever was one. The angled surface is about 5' wide by 4' high. I based the interaction of the trims on Wright's various print tables, and I feel this highly reflects the intention of the design.

I'm sure you are all wondering why I used cork as a backer material, especially given my reluctance to use a surface that could be pinned to for the angled walls of the print room proper. If you look at the attached images, you can see that there is a print on the easel that is not sitting on the ledge below, implying it has to be pinned or similarly attached. Also, there is a noticeable trim around the perimeter, which could (though I admit not necessarily does) indicate a change in material.

I still stand by my decision to show the sloped walls as wood. I realize that there are excellent reasons for them to be plaster or something else, but to me, there is no indication that the surface would be something that could be pinned into. I think if that were the case, there would be some indication in the form of prints not sitting on the rail below. I also think that plaster wouldn't necessarily be smooth enough and perhaps too heavy. And in my opinion, the wood just looks better. While I realize that in terms of scholarship that means absolutely nothing, in the absence of definitive proof one way or another, that's a good enough reason for now. As always, if more information comes to light, I will gladly change it to the proper material.

Enough of my justifications and excuses! Enjoy the print stand. I hope you all like it!

Very good. I don't know if cork was used by Wright or others, then, in a similar way, but the choice seems eminently suitable, for just the reasons you cite.

There is something just a bit top-heavy about the standards. We see two different treatments to the bottom of the ogee molding at the floor, in the two
sketches, and though you have copied one verbatim, I'd prefer to see just a bit more heft at the bottom, to counterweight Wright's blocky capital -- so using
the alternate base detail would be my preference. But Wright is right in any event, so you're on safe ground with your choice.

An excellent point about the base of the standards SDR. I actually hadn't noticed the difference as I was working primarily off of the long elevation. For what it's worth, the perspective shows it without the additional little base as well.

I looked at images of various Wright print tables and, to me, they seem to be slightly top heavy. If I wanted to make the change, which is certainly possible, I'm not entirely sure how big to make the base so it properly relates.

Looking more closely at the print display, I wonder how it is supported. Are the blocks in the slots upon which the panel is attached permanently fixed, or does the display panel move up and down? When it is in the down position, upon what does the panel rest, the floor or the bases of the posts? The posts are held in place only by the two blocks linked by the slender panel, which seems flimsy for such substantial elements.

FLW's drawing doesn't show any more substantial support between the bases, but shouldn't there be something? Or do you suppose the stations are permanently attached to the floor?

In terms of the size, the angled surface is 5' wide and 4' tall. The standards are 3'-4 1/2" Overall width is 6', and the height to the tip of the angled surface is about 4'-9".

My assumption is that the angled portion is fixed. I honestly don't see a functional reason for it to not be. The angle is 20 degrees, which is the same as the angle of the walls in the print room proper. It doesn't seem as though the center of gravity would be too far off of center. Considering that the posts are solid 3" square pieces of wood, I imagine this thing would probably weigh, well...a lot! (SDR, I'm sure you could address this more accurately). Would it be possible to knock over? Sure, but I'm not convinced it would fall over at the first breeze. At least putting the prints on it would be adding negligible weight.

As regards the other print tables, they all had those folding gates that could add stability. However, they would have been just as "top heavy" as this easel. Maybe we should just build one and try it out?

Well, it's a little precarious as to stability, I would say, but it is balanced -- whether the board is fixed (I think unlikely) or movable. (You could flatten it
when space was at a premium, or for moving -- always a consideration with furniture ?)

So, this thing is somewhat bigger than the folding print stand -- wider, anyway. Are the columns similar or identical in height for both pieces ? Before setting
out to create one, a close look at an existing print stand would be wise. Maybe the correct standards are already in production, somewhere ?

In determining the dimensions, I scaled them off of the drawing, which is what I had do do with the entire print room in fact. Is it exactly correct? I'm not sure I have any way of knowing. None of the Spaulding drawings have dimensions on them or even a scale. Short of having the actual drawing in front of me, I'm not sure how to get it exactly right, and even then there would be guesswork. However, by looking at the dimensions of the steps, door widths, trims, etc. I think it is possible to be quite close. I don't think that the entire room being off by a few inches (which is all I think the difference would be) would really affect the appreciation of the space.

The same approximation of dimensions applies to the print easel and I, unfortunately, don't have dimensions for the print stands/tables to compare. I tried to round things to whole inches as much as possible without changing the proportions of the design, and try and be logical about it. The design of the standards for this are unique to it, as far as I know, so it won't exactly match the print tables that David may put elsewhere in the model. I will ask him for dimensions for the standards and we'll see what he can post.

Very good. As for acquiring dimensions from an un-noted drawing, you've done just as I would, I believe, and the resulting level of accuracy is, as you
say, quite sufficient for the purpose of your model.

I just thought it would be interesting to compare the tilting "easel" stand and the print table in every particular, as they are clearly cousins. Roderick's
questions about the mechanics remain, and could be investigated. For one thing, it would be most unusual for the two standards to be linked only by
an axle of some kind about which the display panel (and the standards themselves ?) rotate -- but it isn't a structural impossibility by any means. For
side-to-side "shear" I would have wanted to see two cross-members, or a single beam of a bit greater vertical dimension . . .

The slot suggests (or shouts) the possibility of vertical movement, yet I don't see that there would be much need for that, given the generous height of
the surface. It seems that the object as shown would serve both sitting and standing viewers, for instance.

Page 13 of this thread contains the images so far posted of the print table(s) out there, including David's version. One entry gives a height of between
45 and 48 inches, depending on how one reads the listed dimensions.

Finally, it would seem fitting for the two objects, if they are to appear in a single model, to be coordinated in appearance -- would you say ? It is per-
haps the case that the print table has been well enough worked out to function "in the flesh," while the easel stand was a half-formed notion when
Wright made his drawings of the gallery. If so, you might feel welcome to make whatever little adjustments you see fit, for it to "stand up on it's own"
-- as it were !

Meisolus, have you tried contacting the Dana House? I don't know of any reason why they would be reluctant to provide exact dimensions of the print table.

SDR, I agree that the easel stand was probably a half-formed notion as shown on the drawings. But I also believe there must have been intended a closer relationship with the table than appears to be the case. One view shows chairs placed in front of the easel, and between the legs and spindles of the chairs there appears to be no structure below attaching the posts. That may have been a convenience of drafting, since a detail of perhaps a spindled connection would have made a mess of the drawing.

I also cannot understand why there would have been a slot if the easel was to have been fixed, or even why the supporting posts should have been designed that way. The argument in favor of an adjustable easel would be if in addition to prints, the gallery were to offer such items as vases or statuary that would require a horizontal surface to display.

My assumption when making the easel was that it would have to be fixed, based on the reasons you have already given. If the angled board is attached at both the blocking within the verticals and also at the top of the verticals, it would have a good amount of stability. Also, save for the reason SDR gave of making it easier to move, why would it really need to be mobile? It's huge and the angle is quite gentle. It would work nicely for sitting or standing. I don't really see a purpose in being able to tilt it; I don't think it adds a great deal of usefulness.

I have not tried contacting the Dana House. I'll consult with David and see where things are. We are trying to wrap this project up and hope to start more models soon, but it would be nice if we have the time.

Every piece of furniture -- meubles, mobilia, etc -- needs to be moved at least once or twice, if not more frequently; it also needs to be stored, or shipped,
on occasion. For that reason, in my opinion, furniture should when possible be foldable, collapsable, or demountable.

Speaking of digital modeling, we once saw, here, the Storer house of Wright rendered in Minecraft, which program apparently limits the artist to a palette
of cubic forms with which to assemble objects.

I'd like to see more of this work. Wrightian Textile Block in Minecraft is a rare case of a good -- if not perfect -- match between material and designer.
I just stumbled on this winning piece of building, lushly rendered and lighted but with the unmistakable rigidity imposed by limited formal toolbox. I like
looking at it.